The so called "War on Women".

The Violence Against Women Act is an act that was first brought about in 1994 in the effort to provide victims (women) of domestic violent crimes support in the form of shelters and legal aid. Of course, this act has been revised 3 official times with many other proposed bills to change it. The current issue amongst Republicans is that the Democrats want the bill to give federal funding to victims and also temporary visas to immigrants that are victims of violent crimes. There is also a new bill towards this act that gives Native American tribal leaders more power to prosecute non-Indian residents who cause violent crimes to their spouses or girlfriends.

Ms. Sepassi’s editorial blog on this subject called “Women: Republican vs Democrat”, shows that she is in favor of this act and she thinks that the Republicans being against this act means that Republicans are against women. Although I can see her train of thought, I do disagree. After researching this act, I found that the reason why the Republicans are against the new amendments to the act is because they are against giving federal funding towards protecting same sex couples and they are also against giving visas to immigrants just because they are in a violent relationship.  The new bill uses too much money (in the tune of $682 million) and Republicans want to revise that and hold back the bill to lower the amount of federal funding.

Democrats have turned this around on the Republicans to make it look like they are creating a “war on women”, which is not true. They are concerned about the spending and (being Republicans) they are against the support of same sex couples, which I do not feel is right. But I do agree with Republicans on the issue of spending and giving out visas. I do not think that immigrants should get visas just because they help law enforcement in a domestic violence case. To me, that’s not a reason. I do not feel that America should be the world’s police.  Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) addressed the issue of Democrats using this bill as a political ploy to make Republicans look bad and I believe this quote from him sums up the real agenda of Democrats when it comes to this issue.

“All these things add up to things that are keeping a bill that could pass on a voice vote from being passed,” Grassley said. “Violence against women except for these additions is noncontroversial. I’m afraid what they’re doing here is they want a political issue — you know, ‘war on women’ — and they are going to end up with another one-year extension.”

My personal views on this act are not what the normal woman would probably think. I know that with an issue like domestic violence it is easy to just say “Let’s fix it!” But it isn’t that easy. I think that whitehouse.gov saying that this act will fulfill the promise of ending domestic violence towards women is entirely unrealistic. That’s like saying they promise to end murders and poverty. It won’t happen. We are human, animals, and unfortunately bad things will happen. I do support shelters and clinics for violence victims, but I think that this act should be more focused on prevention or empowering women to protect themselves against the violence. Whether that is though self-defense classes or even in relationship counseling classes to know how to leave an abusive relationship or how to not be involved in one to begin with. I also do not think that this act should just cover women. Although it is highly less likely, there are men who are abused by women. Where do they go? They have no coverage lawfully and are left alone because they are men and being abused is not “the manly” thing to do. Expanding the coverage of this act for every legal citizen will also include domestic violence amongst same sex couples. I feel that this act only focuses on women because they are the most likely to be victims, but I do not think that is fair. Anyone who is a victim should feel secure enough in our government to know that they are protected from their abusers. But to have such a limited act that costs so much is ignorant to me. And why not have an act that actually helps people before they are victims? Why do we have to wait until they are already hurt? Doesn’t make sense to me.

My sources are:

Grassley: GOP won't filibuster Violence Against Women Act

House Republicans to Propose own Anti-Domestic Violence Bill

Strengthening the Violence Against Women Act

Ms. Sepassi's blog can be found at:

Elizabeth Sepassi

Pleasantly Surprised

When I read the first couple of lines on Megan Prices editorial blog over Karl Rove Group Sees Obama's Personal DynamismAs Key Challenge In 2012 Election, I thought “oh great, another Obama supporter!” and I had a prejudice against what I thought would be in her editorial. But I was pleasantly surprised. Megan did say that a big key factor to her liking Obama is his “sparkling personality”, which I disagree with entirely because he freaks me out and I can barely stand to look at him! But I was surprised when she agreed that a candidates smile and personality is not enough to determine if he should be the president and that she wanted to learn more about Obama’s platform. That is what she chose Karl Rove Group Sees Obama’s Personal Dynamism As Key Challenge in 2012 Election to base her editorial over, and I respect that. I like to see that there are people out there who want to learn more about the people they are voting for and do not just base their decision off of looks. Candidates used to be chosen from their policies and platform and who would be the best candidate for our nation, but ever since Kennedy it seems that looks and personality play a bigger role and platform and policy has taken a back road. I believe that a voter needs to trust who they vote for and so in that way personality does play a key role, but I think that the candidate’s policies should definitely be the most important factor in voting. That is why I was pleasantly surprised with Megan’s editorial, even if we do have different opinions about Obama’s physical qualities. At least we are both trying to dig deeper and find out all that we can about the candidates so that we can make the best decision in this coming up election.

 To view Megan's entire blog click here

Lesser of Two Evils

It was actually pretty difficult for me to come up with a topic to write about for this blog post. Which, to be honest, is amazing to me because I am usually pretty opinionated about a lot of issues. I have been watching a few different news channels about the coming elections and it frankly scares me. We are literally in an election where voters will have to choose the lesser of two evils.

First you have Obama who will obviously be the Democratic Party representative. Besides the fact that I am a different party than Obama so I will, of course, have different opinions on his platforms than a democratic supporters would, I do not feel that he is even very American. And that is not a play on the whole birth certificate controversy that has surrounded his term and campaign. Which while we are on that topic, how can someone run (and be elected) without being able to provide a simple document like a birth certificate? That is one of the most basic rules to being President of the United States. How can he have surpassed that? But besides that, one of my biggest pet peeves with Obama is the fact that he sticks the government’s nose into places that it does not belong. For example, when he “saved” the auto industry from bankruptcy by bailing them out with millions of dollars. America is supposed to be a free market. It is up to the individual businesses responsibility to keep up with their accounting and financing. The auto industry probably wouldn’t have been in such bad shape if it wasn’t for the Democratic Party’s insistent use of “global warming” as a scare tactic to make consumers buy hybrid cars from companies that the government partly owned. Ever think about that? The government basically invested money into a company so, of course, they will want consumers to feel compelled to buy cars from that company. It is all just very shady to me and I believe that the longer citizens go on not trusting their government is a very dangerous thing.

On the other side of the campaign you have either Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum. These two men scare me! Romney basically hates women. He would (try to at least) remove all Planned Parenthood facilities and any type of women’s health and women’s decision about their health. As a woman, I do not like the idea of some man bringing his political and religious ideas into my life and making my decisions for me. As for Santorum, he doesn’t even know what is in the constitution because he apparently has never heard of the separation of Church and State. He inhumane war against the lesbian, gay and bisexual community reminds me of Hitler. The fact the he can be quoted as saying “One of the few things I agree with the Taliban on…”, is outrageous. He was speaking about the Taliban’s hatred of homosexuals. I do not want a president who has anything in common with the Taliban. Do you?

America isn’t what it used to be. It isn’t the land of the free and it sure isn’t the home of the brave. It is the land of lies and selfish agendas. I do not think that any of the potential candidates remember what America was founded for and what it, at one time, stood for. Personally, I would love to see this country become the biggest and best in the economy and education again. But, apparently, the bigger concerns for our candidates are decisions that don’t involve them and what some people choose to do in their bedrooms. There are so many concerns and worries in my mind that that is why I could not just focus on one issue for this blog. Our into government is an issue that needs to be addressed.

Obama's Internet Policy

The editorial article I chose to critique comes from The Washington Post and is over Obamas internet policy. This policy is supposed to make the internet safer by monitoring internet usage. This article is very against this policy and it seems to also be very against Obama himself. I feel like this article is focused mainly towards the “internet generations” (16-30 years old) because the main issue of this article is about the internet, which I know a lot of people cannot live without.  This article talks of how this policy is just one of many ways that Obama and his team have taken away the rights of privacy for American citizens and even describes Obama as being an “internet cop, enforcing what once was a voluntary code of conduct.” The author describes the Obama administration as being anything but concerned for citizens privacy since apparently the Transportation Security Administration have photographed millions of passengers in the nude, including small children. I am not sure how accurate that is. If it is accurate, then that scares me a lot. How is that legal? Small children? I can understand searching someone, or x-ray images of their shoes, etc, but what does a nude photograph do? I do not see how something like that can go unnoticed. The article also talks about how Obamacare is sticking their supervising hands into people’s medical records by taking a failed $20 million British effort and trying it out on their own. The British government gave up on it because, “There can be no confidence that the programme has delivered or can be delivered as originally conceived.” This quote means that the x-rays or medical records that would be sent electronically are not the same quality as in their original form. I can understand how this sounds like a good idea, but it also scares me a little to have all the records on a computer. It has been proven over and over again that computer are not safe. Even the most secured can be tapped by hackers. What could people do with medical records? My concerns are not for average citizens but for celebrities or political figures that are under almost constant fear of attack. I am not completely confident that these records could ever be entirely safe. And to me, that’s not something an American citizen should be afraid of. What happened to land of the free? Is it now the land of the free...... when the government decides to let you?

You can find the article Here

I read an article on NBC's website (www.msnbc.com) about the differences between Romney and Santorum. I would like to say right now that I will be voting for Ron Paul! But, I am curious about these two GOP "front runners". As much as I like Ron Paul, unfortunately I do not know if he will make if through the election. So I figured that I should learn some facts about Romney and Santorum.

I am not sure how I feel about this article, to be honest. On one hand the author does a decent job of comparing the two candidates and how they talk to their audiences and handle the press. Santorum seems to connect better to his crowd and takes questions from the Associated Press after his speeches, where as Romney is more repetitive and "rehearsed" with his speeches and refuses to take questions after his speeches. And what questions he does take from the audience are prescreened and approved.

This article is not a hard hitting article by any means. It basically just gives an over view of who the men are and how they act in press situations. I won't say that I really liked the article but I do appreciate it. I think a lot of voters will vote based on the personal impression of the candidate. I, for one, am guilty of that. I liked Bush (don't judge me!) because I met him while he was Governor and he was very personable and nice. A lot nicer than Rick Perry, I'll have you know! Which I doubt that will come as much of a surprise to you. This article is relevant to me because it tells me that kind of information that I use to determine which candidate I will most likely follow. Which, to be honest, I hope I won't need this information and I can just vote for Ron Paul like I want to! But if not, its always nice to have a back up.

Differences between Romney and Santorum- by the Associated Press

I suppose I should start this blog off by giving a little basic background information on myself followed by my political beliefs/knowledge and finished with an explanation/description of this Blog.

My name is Carrie Hicks. I recently turned 26 (on New Years Eve. I know. Awesome birthday!) I have an Associate of Arts degree in Merchandising and Design with an emphasis in Fashion Design from Wade College in Dallas, TX. My dream job would be a costume designer/stylist fr tv and films, but considering how hard the fashion industry is to enter I have decided to go back to school to get a Bachelors in Public Relations from Texas State. That way I will hopefully be able to have a steady job and then do fashion on the side as a profitable (hopefully) hobby. I was born in Alabama and because of that I don't have the "Must always live and die in Texas" mentality and I hope to travel and explore and live in many different places. My top pick would be to live in London. But that might just be an inner dork trying to live out Harry Potter!

I was raised a Republican (Alabama, remember?) but even at a young age I could tell that I did not feel the same way as my mom and brother when it came to things like gay marriage, immigration, welfare, drug control, etc. So I started to consider myself a liberal Republican. I do not believe that gay marriage should even be a governmental issue. I am a huge support of the separation of church and state and to me, gay marriage is an issue of church. I don't buy the argument of, "Well two guys could just get married for tax or benefit reasons and then cheat the system." A man and a women couldn't do the same thing? To me, it's non of anyone's business who someone else wants to marry. As long as the other person is legal and its a human being... I don't see the big deal. I have the mentality that everyone would be a lot happier if we all just minded our own business. As long as the actions of others do not harm or endanger those around them, I don't see why anyone should care. Having described these feelings to a friend of mine recently she told me that I have the beliefs of a Libertarian. So that is what I have started to officially consider myself. I even changed it on Facebook under my political views. So you know its serious!

This blog is primarily made to satisfy part of my Government class but I hope to receive an understanding of different parts of the government that I am, frankly, clueless about. I wish that I had a better understanding of how our government works and how it is being run. I feel like the news media is full of their own opinions and agenda so I never know what to believe. I end up watching two different news stations and piece together what halfway makes sense and hoping that that is that truth! I think this is one thing that should be outlawed! Media over exaggerating and pushing their watchers/readers in one direction. Although I suppose it would be a little extreme to make it illegal. But that's how against it I am.

I named this blog Political Incorrect because its kind of a play on words. It is suppose to be a joke about my little knowledge of political issues and also a play with being "politically incorrect" since I seem to have different opinions from other people.